Cases published August 2017

Family Court of Australia

Glavas & Forsyth and Anor [2017] FamCA 641 (25 August 2017)Parenting – allegations of abuse of children by father resiled from– where the father, maternal grandmother, and Independent Children’s Lawyer tendered written terms of settlement – where the state child welfare authority asserted the allegations of sexual abuse were substantiated, refused to join in the settlement, and refused to withdraw from the proceedings – where analysis of the evidence reveals flaws and peculiarities which debase the reliability of the allegations – findings of the court are not dictated by conclusions reached by the child welfare authority- concluded the evidence did not satisfactorily demonstrate any risk of the father causing harm to the children by their sexual abuse.

Dickens & Dickens [2017] FamCA 572 (3 August 2017)Practice and procedure – application for the single expert to answer questions to clarify his report – where answering those questions would involve the single expert in an unreasonable amount of work .Practice and procedure – application for the single expert report not to be relied upon – where no basis is established for the single expert report to be wholly excluded from the evidence.Practice and procedure – application for the discharge of the Independent Children’s Lawyer and for no replacement Independent Children’s Lawyer to be appointed – where part of the foundation for that application relies on the father’s own action in commencing civil litigation against the Independent Children’s Lawyer – where the mere existence of civil litigation forms no basis for the granting of the father’s application – where there is no basis for the Independent Children’s lawyer to be removed for actual or perceived bias.

Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Benedict & Gill [2017] FCCA 1437 (27 June 2017)Interim parenting application – unilateral revocation of spend time arrangements – consideration of best interests of the child – child should spend substantial and significant time with each of her parents.Evidence – letter from psychologist tendered in evidence – objection to tender – resolution of objection in interim application – objection grounded on failure to meet Makita principles – letter from psychologist expressly disavows status of expert report – Makita principles not relevant – further objection on basis of privilege – joint privilege – letter from psychologist prima facie inadmissible – contents of letter from psychologist affect rights of child – letter admissible under exception created by s131(2)(i) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).Evidence – expert evidence – court is authorised to decide on all of the evidence an ultimate fact in issue – expert evidence is not determinative.

Feedback

We welcome feedback and suggestions about the content on this site and about how we can improve the site design and functionality. Please advise if you have any suggestions to assist us in ensuring this site is user-friendly.

Disclaimer

Feedback

We welcome feedback and suggestions about the content on this site and about how we can improve the site design and functionality. Please advise if you have any suggestions to assist us in ensuring this site is user-friendly.